Much has been said about the FUD imposed by Microsoft upon its users against us GNU/Linux and Free Software. We, enlightened, GNU/Linux and Free Software users, are so tired of those tricks of Microsoft that some people called for ``Can we stop fighting FUD with FUD?'' Although I did call for continuing fighting FUD with FUD in my comments on the article I kinda agree with the author. It's unnecessary to emphasize too much any of those thicks. But we must record them (The FUD FAQ, FUDzilla) and be totally aware of them. Then what? *Always* stick to the truth!
To stick to the truth and to let more and more FUDed people know the truth, it can not be avoided to uncover those tricks. But remember, just uncover them to show the truth, do not impose any of our thoughts upon people. Yes, it's hard to do decently. But when there is a will, there is a way. Here the author is right in a way. "If we want to promote free software -- and it’s associated ideals - to new users then we should promote it on its merits, without twisting facts and by giving them a chance to get it wrong occasionally." And meanwhile, as Stallman said, "stick to the truth", "accept the limitations of existing free software, and/or change them by writing or supporting development of further free software."
In mind, I am a strong supporter of Free Software, no doubt. But concerning the fight against FUD, I prefer the way of Taiji - conquering the unyielding with the yielding. Thus I invent the DUF (previously FUD when I commented on the article).
To stick to the truth and to let more and more FUDed people know the truth, it can not be avoided to uncover those tricks. But remember, just uncover them to show the truth, do not impose any of our thoughts upon people. Yes, it's hard to do decently. But when there is a will, there is a way. Here the author is right in a way. "If we want to promote free software -- and it’s associated ideals - to new users then we should promote it on its merits, without twisting facts and by giving them a chance to get it wrong occasionally." And meanwhile, as Stallman said, "stick to the truth", "accept the limitations of existing free software, and/or change them by writing or supporting development of further free software."
In mind, I am a strong supporter of Free Software, no doubt. But concerning the fight against FUD, I prefer the way of Taiji - conquering the unyielding with the yielding. Thus I invent the DUF (previously FUD when I commented on the article).
- D - Decision (This talks about choice. You are the decision-maker for a choice)
- U - Unclosure (This term is coined to emphasize the concept of ``Open Source''. If one does want to know what's inside, I'd like to show him the OSD by OSI.)
- F - Freedom (This does specify what's the meaning of `Free' in ``Free Software'', and If one does want to know what `Freedoms' he can win, I'd like to show him the FSD by FSF, in particular, the four essential freedoms.)
As you may noticed, the one occupying higher level on the list is based upon the one below it. And *Freedom* is the right base of all other two above. And the term `Unclosure' instead of ``Open Source'' also implies my bias to ``Free Software''. One may be curious that how Stallman got to know the article. To tell you the truth, I sent him an email telling him about that and also show him this invention (in the email, originally, in the order F, U, D). So what's his comment on my invention? ``That's clever.'' Yes, that's what he said. :-)
OK, it's time for us, if we really fight FUD with FUD recent years (according to the author of the article), agree or not, to stop fighting FUD with FUD, but continue to fight FUD with DUF! :-)
OK, it's time for us, if we really fight FUD with FUD recent years (according to the author of the article), agree or not, to stop fighting FUD with FUD, but continue to fight FUD with DUF! :-)
Site Feed
0 comments:
Post a Comment